Less than one week before the January
23, 2006 federal election, a top cleric in a respected evangelical denomination
wrote to his pastors under the title “A
Comment on the Upcoming Federal Election.”An extractfrom his guidance reads:

I want to
assure you of three things. First of
all, I don’t know how I am going to
vote and secondly, if I did, it would not be appropriate to share
that information…it’s why we have secret ballots. Thirdly, we don’t tell people how to vote
[in our denomination]. It would be
impractical, unthinkable and unbiblical to do so. [my
underline and bold]

God is not indifferent to Canadian
politics and national governance. Nor is
the Gospel of Jesus Christ a revelation advocating social and political
pluralism – acquiescence and indifference to conflicting social values and
governance principles. Dr. Peter Kreeft,
professor of philosophy at Boston College and King’s College in New York City,
and renowned Christian apologist declares “indifference” to be one of the
Devil’s most successful weapons against faith and salvation. And here he draws on the earlier thinking of Blaise
Pascal (Pensées).
The Devil, according to Kreeft, delights in darkness and fog, not
light. Kreeft argues that indifference
drains away passion and light – not only the light of faith, but also reason. He writes:

Indifference
is stupid. Indifference is more
fashionable today than it ever was before…If there is a certain symptom of
social senility it is indifference, shown in slogans like ‘anything goes,’ ‘do
your own thing,’ ‘different strokes for different folks,’ or ‘live and let
live.’[1]

We dare not
teach anything worth teaching – wisdom, morality, religion. If the reasons for this are political – if
pluralistic democracy is incompatible with learning true wisdom – then by all
means and for the sake of saving our children’s souls, let us quickly sweep
away pluralistic democracy. For what
does it profit a man to gain the whole world’s approval and lose his own soul?[2]

Exactly who gave the clerical advice on
the then upcoming 2006 Election (cited
above in purple) or what denomination the minister was advising is not
important. It is the substance of his
remarks, especially coming from a senior leader in Canadian Christendom that is
cause for concern. He will be referred to,
as was done in the two previous essays of the series, as “our lukewarm minister,”meaning he is neither hot nor cold in spiritual conviction. He is a victim, as Robert Frost points out,
of being toobroadminded; or as Peter Kreeft decries, of being indifferent; or he suffers from both maladies
of the truth. The like-minded are blinded
by acculturation to liberalism and pluralism, both factors contributing to
a general diagnosis of indifference –
an apathy towards same-sex marriage and the message it sends to our youth about
the morality of anal and oral sex, and a lack of concern about the negative
consequences to traditional religious, family and parenting values
caused by the state’s adoption of homosexism.
If our spiritual shepherds declare no clear discernment of God’s will in
the course of such a pivotal campaign as Election 2006, what hope is there for
the Christian “sheep”? Moreover, what
hope is there in effectively resisting the highly organized, unified and
committed anti-Christian forces in Canadian politics? God can and does perform healing miracles on
nations, but Revelation 15-16 tells us that He is unlikely to repair our
governance woes while a significant portion of Canadian Christendom is “lukewarm”
in its witness - in a quandary over what to do in a key federal election,
and unrepentant for being in such a state of indifference.

According to EGALE (Equality for Gays
and Lesbians Everywhere; now also
representing bisexuals, transsexuals and queers), the following table[3]
depicts stakeholders unified in their endorsement of homosexism; and for most on this list,
unified in the promotion and defense of marriage redefinition during the
election campaign:

The
Very Rev. the Hon. Lois Wilson, C.C., former Senator and former Moderator,
United Church of Canada

With the enactment of same-sex
marriage law in the summer of 2005, the above homosexist groups and activists
achieved a huge victory against a formidable array of opposing agencies and
individuals. And by January 2006,
the only process that could keep Bill C-38 from becoming permanent Canadian
legislation was the election of a majority Conservative Government, and if not
this, then the election of a majority of small “c” conservatives opposed to
marriage redefinition. Pat O'Brien,
MP for London-Fanshawe, for
instance, left the Liberal Party in June 2005 over the gay marriage
issue and was now sitting as an independent.
He reported that over 90 percent of his constituency was opposed to
marriage redefinition. Some Liberals
running in Election 2006 (like the morally conservative Tom Wappel of
Scarborough Southwest), declared their intent to vote against same-sex
marriage, if re-elected. Some three
dozen Liberal MPs declared similar election platforms rejecting same-sex
“marriage.”

One month
ahead of the 2006 election, at a meeting in Kitchener before a locally based
coalition called “Defend Traditional Marriage and Family,” MP O’Brien
said:

The issue's not dead . . . and it won't be
dead unless you buy into the spin that it's over. There are millions of Canadians who still
care about this issue. Check the polls.[4]

Indeed, according to a Leger Marketing
poll of 2,013 voters conducted Dec. 9-13, 2005, some 55 per cent of respondents
favoured a free vote in Parliament on the issue of same-sex marriage. Supporters included 54 per cent of
Liberal supporters and 61 per cent of Conservative backers. Only thirty-six per cent of those polled said
they did not favour a free vote on the issue.[5]

During the 2006 election campaign, the
Harper led Conservatives issued a platform document called, “Stand Up For
Canada.” And under a section titled “Stand Up For Families” the Party platform
declared:

Giving MPs a free vote on
marriage. The Liberal legislation
abolishing the traditional definition of marriage passed only on a whipped
cabinet vote. We believe that parliament
alone, based on a completely free vote, should be able to determine the
definition of marriage.

The Plan. A Conservative government will hold a truly
free vote on the definition of marriage in the next session of Parliament. If the resolution is passed, the government
will introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage
while respecting existing same-sex marriages.[6]

On December 6, 2006, almost a year after
the Harper Conservatives formed the new minority government; the motion
to revisit Bill C-38 was tabled in Parliament.
It read:

That this House call on the
government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of
marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex
marriages.

The next day the motion was defeated
by a margin of 175 to 123. With the
Conservatives holding only 124 of the 308 seats in the House of Commons, most
MPs saw the defeat as inevitable. The
vote appeared to be taken only to fulfill the election promise. Harper called the vote “decisive'' and
told reporters his government “will accept the democratic result.'' He
also said he doesn't plan to reopen the file again.

Eligible Christian voters will have to
account for their actions (and inactions) on the same-sex marriage issue over
the course of the national decision culminating in the voter stand taken on
Election Day 2006. Note that some 35
percent of eligible Canadians did not bother to cast a ballot on January 23,
2006. A significant number of these were
likely “Christians;” their voter apathy served only to weaken the Christian
influence on our governance.
Highlighting the power of each vote in the 2006 election, 31 ridings
were won by a margin of less than three percent; the lowest riding margin was
21 votes.[7] [Indeed, in the previous election, MP Belinda
Stronach was elected by less than 700 votes.
She is noted for her momentous defection to the Liberals, saving
the Paul Martin Government from falling during a May 17, 2005 confidence vote,
thus enabling the enactment of Bill C-38.]
The same-sex marriage bill was never inevitable and certainly not
unstoppable even as late as January 2006.
The permanent enactment of same-sex marriage is a huge Christian defeat,
an unprecedented judgment upon Canadian Christendom – professed to be 76
percent of the population in the 2001 Census.
For those believers, complacently content that the world is unfolding as
it should, the following analysis is devoted to exploding your peace of mind;
indeed the essay aims to reveal the weakness of the status
quo Christian witness and to motivate you to take a stronger authentic
stand for Christ. For lukewarm clergy and lay Christians, who
were perplexed in Election 2006 by the need to choose between the Liberals,
NDP, Bloc and Conservatives, this essay lays bare the party platforms as seen
from a biblical perspective.

A study of parliamentary voting on
same-sex marriage starting in 1999, including the related hate law legislation,
Bill C-250, will reveal much about the disfunctionality of our so-called
“representative democracy” and also show the extent of political polarization
on crucial social and moral governance issues among the federal parties. Moreover, a study into parliamentary
governance will amplify the inappropriateness of the dogma of the church
leaving the so-called "secular state" to do its “separate thing,” a theme well
debunked in articles Part 1: Open My Eyes to See Who I should Vote For – Jan
2006 and Part 2: “We Believe in Tolerance and the Separation of Church and
State!” Last, a study of the
parliamentary party system will confront the viewpoint that Canadian
Christendom has a so-called credible “religious Left” – i.e. a faction of
Christians called to collaborate with the New Democratic Party.

What exists
today, which is no small dilemma for the centrist Liberal Party, is a colossal
collision of the rights, values and interests espoused by those on the
political “Left” - advocates of a postmodern worldview based on liberalism,
humanism, Darwinism, homosexism and secularism; opposed by those
on the political “Right” – advocates who adhere to traditional rights and
values embodied in heterosexism and orthodox religious beliefs. The clash of interests has existed under the
banner of sexual liberation for over five decades and has most recently played
itself out in the same-sex marriage decision.
A look at the numbers below (and in the subsequent analysis) will give
pause for thought on the representative democratic nature of our government and
on the extent to which the homosexual claim to marriage access has galvanized
the political agenda of the Left and fractured the solidarity of the political Centre.

[Note: In this table, the “paired”
votes - the practice of linking a “yea” with a “nay” so that neither MP is
registered with a yes or no, have been treated as absent MPs.]

In 1999, we find the greatest level
of agreement on retention of traditional marriage with all its intendent
heterosexist principles. However, over
time the NDP and Bloc adopt an unequivocal homosexist worldview and the
Conservative Party retains its traditional heterosexist worldview. After the Liberal Party first declared its
position behind tradtional marriage, the Party flip-flopped to adopt the
position of the political Left.

When the voting patterns of the NDP
and the Bloc Parties are isolated (see table below), it is evident the extent
to which their social policies are homosexist.
In 2005, MP Bev Desjarlais, was the only NDP member to vote against
same-sex marriage. As a result she was not allowed by her Party to
run in the 2006 election. The NDP was
unanimous in rejecting the 2006 motion to retain traditional marriage. The homosexual
advocacy agency EGALE gave the NDP Party an “A” rating and Leader Jack Layton
an “A+” rating in advance of Election 2006.
The agency said of Mr. Layton:

Jack
Layton had given a lifetime of unwavering, active support and leadership in the
struggle for LGBT equality, including supporting equal marriage in every way
possible. He did not allow a free vote, and punished former NDP MP Bev
Desjarlais for voting against equal marriage. As a result she chose to leave
the party and sit as an Independent. Jack Layton champions other LGBT issues,
including providing explicit protection for trans people in the Canadian Human
Rights Act and the National Day Against Homophobia. As a Toronto city councilor
he marched for years in the local Pride parade.

Grade on LGBT issues: 100% on equal
marriage; 100% on hate propaganda. Based
on the percentage of times MPs voted in favour of legislation furthering
equality for lesbian, gay, bi and trans people, versus those that voted
against. Absences are not included. The NDP ranked first of the four parties
with elected MPs. 100% is a perfect score. [13]

Paradoxically, while our evangelical
“lukewarm minister”was stymied by the need to choose a political
platform in Election 2006, so-called “organized labour” saw no quandary in
making a choice; deciding to work relentlessly for the NDP cause. Indemic to the ideology of “organized labour”
is the socialist notion of solidarity, a concept which in most
instances is at best just a euphemism for organizedintolerance;
at worst systematic bigotry. Dissension is incompatible with the notion of solidarity. Although unlikely that the more than a half
million members of the
Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) are all socialists or all committed
homosexists, the Union chose to show solidarity with the NDP in
Election 2006. During the campaign, CUPE issued fourteen fact sheets
criticizing the political platforms of all parties except the NDP and five days before the
election the Union issued a pro-NDP voters’ guide. Indeed, six members of CUPE ran for the NDP
in Election 2006. In a free country like
Canada such democratic rights and actions can take place, although it is hugely
hypocritical of the political Left (and the “liberal” media) to countenance
these types of interventions while crying “religious interference” when the
church publicly declares the Gospel of Jesus Christ in opposition to political
policies or when Evangelical and Catholic staff from Christian agencies like Focus
on the Family chose to run for the Conservative Party.

However, unlike members of CUPE,
members of Canadian Christendom are not in a union, not free to ignore God’s
will. Believers are in an autocracy
under one God, in three persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Believers must declare solidaritywith
the one Gospel of Jesus Christ and solidaritywith the
counsel of the one Holy Spirit.
Regrettably, it is a gross lack of solidarity in Christian
faith that is the root cause of the ineffectual Christian witness within
Canada. Consider the ironic fact that
both CUPE and Canadian Christendom have members working for school boards,
hospitals, municipalities, universities, public utilities, homes for the aged,
day-care centres, children’s aid societies, libraries, transit systems,
emergency services and other publicly funded employers. Yet, only the Union is truly committed to
winning society over to their point-of-view; the Union and its allied agencies listed
in the opening table to this article are winning the struggle for Canadian
hearts and minds.

According to their website, CUPE is firmly
committed to fighting all forms of harassment and discrimination
including homophobia – which is liberationist lexicon for all natures of
disagreement with the tenets of homosexism.
Ergo, CUPE is firmly committed to fighting the
heterosexist views of gender and sexual morality held by Christians and most
followers of other traditional world religions.
Much of CUPE’s political and educational work on lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender (LGBT) issues is the domain of the National Pink Triangle
Committee (NPTC). This Committee
takes its name from the pink triangle symbol worn by those targeted as
homosexuals in the Nazi concentration camps of the Second World War. It has since been reclaimed by the lesbian
and gay community as a symbol of struggle and survival. And within the labour movement, the pink
triangle has also become known as a sign of activism and solidarity.[14] The CUPE website declares that education is
key to the work of the NPTC. For
example, the Committee helped develop a workshop for union members on LGBT
issues. The Pride in CUPE Workshop is designed to explode the myths and
stereotypes that portray LGBT people negatively. In their own words, the Workshop attempts
to demonstrate that since homophobia and heterosexism, likeall
belief systems, are learned, so too can such harmful ideologies be
unlearned through education. [my
underline]

CUPE’s homosexist viewpoint:

There is no qualitative difference in the love shared between two
people, whether those two people be a man and woman, two women, or two
men. We know that our relationships are
valid. The extension of marriage rights would enhance the validity of our
relationships throughout Canadian society thereby helping to bring an end to
the discrimination we endure. We dare to dream of a time when our children are
not bullied and harassed at school because their parents are of the same sex; we
dare to dream of a time when our families accept our relationships as loving
and committed and not as a “passing phase” or “alternative lifestyle.” For us,
marriage is about equality, choice and ending the discrimination we know all
too well.[15]

The passion with which CUPE, in solidarity
with the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the NDP, uphold their homosexist
convictions rivals any so-called “religious fundamentalists.” Indeed, their secularist anti-Christian dogma
has been labelled “religious humanism.”
The extent of CUPE’s indifference to homosexual, bisexual and
transgendered lifestyles, including alternative parenting and family variations
is such that the Union will not countenance the idea of marriage equivalency –
a “separate but equal” same-sex union registry. They argue:

The creation of an ‘equivalent’ to
marriage for same-sex couples would perhaps satisfy those who believe that
marriage ought to be the exclusive preserve of heterosexual couples; however,
it would not satisfy equality seekers and the ongoing legal challenges would
continue. This option would also add nothing new to the legislative landscape; this
is because lesbian and gay couples already have a majority of the rights and
responsibilities enjoyed by opposite-sex married couples. For example, the
passing of Bill C-23, the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act 2000,
provided equality for LGBT Canadians in over 68 federal laws. Yet, lesbian and
gay Canadians are still denied access to marriage.[16]

The point in coming this far in
elaborating the unionist-NDP position on homosexuality is to remind Christians
(particularly Christian voters!) of the extent to which the ideology behind the
NDP is incompatible with the Christian worldview. Lukewarm Christians and the liberal-minded -
in a three party quandary over how to vote, need to wake up and recognize that firmly
committed to diversity is an oxymoron, this really means firmly
committed to undermining Christian values.
Orthodox religious beliefs are not tolerated in the socialist view of
diversity. This means the NDP are firmly
committed to: (1) winning the clash of rights and freedoms in the public
square between those holding homosexist values and those adhering to a
heterosexist worldview; and (2) winning the morality wars between those holding
secular humanist ideologies and believers adhering to orthodox religious
tenets.

If the NDP demonstrated a shred of
tolerance for the millenniums-old perspective on homosexuality held by
traditional world religions (indeed, if they showed any tolerance for orthodox
views on abortion, sexual liberation, family, marriage and feminism) a Christian
might have beginning circumstance to argue in favour of supporting the
Party. However, there is none. Look at the parliamentary voting pattern; the
NDP intolerance extends to removing all MPs who challenge the Party’s
ideological solidarity.
Their extremism extends to refusing a separate but equal “same-sex
union” registry, all the while acknowledging that gays, bisexuals, lesbians and
transgendered citizens have all the protections and privileges possible short
of marriage. The NDP’s fanatical
insistence on the need to use the “M-word” implies that countries like Sweden,
Norway, Denmark, Finland, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Hungary, New
Zealand, Switzerland, Slovenia, Iceland, Czech Republic and Luxembourg are in
gross violation of human rights because of their “democratic” choice of civil
unions and registered partnerships over the redefinition of marriage.

Only four other countries (out of 193
worldwide) have redefined the millenniums-old heterosexual institution of
marriage to include homosexuals. And in
all of these states the pivotal role of leftist politics in enabling the extraordinary
legislation is unmistakable. Before
continuing with the Canadian analysis, it is worthwhile examining these four international
cases.

Consider the Netherlands. Rod Dreher, writing for the National Review, said of Holland:

I have just entered Amsterdam's
red-light district in — honest! — an attempt to visit the Oude Kerk, the
medieval ‘old church’ that is the capital city's oldest stone building. Because
the streets are so clean, orderly, and nonthreatening, you hardly realize
you've entered the louche part of town, until you notice that the sickly-sweet
aroma of burning hashish from the ‘coffeeshops’ never really goes away. Then
you notice display windows proffering a selection of bizarre devices and videos
appealing to every imaginable vile affection…And, of course, there are the whores,
many of them transvestites, standing in their windows, rapping on the glass to
solicit attention and trade. The Oude Kerk sits in the middle of this cesspool,
a faded jewel in a steaming dunghill... this country is perhaps the world's
most postmodern nation, the place where liberalism has penetrated most deeply.
It's an egalitarian social democracy, sexually emancipated, thoroughly
irreligious, and largely devoid of nationalist consciousness. Holland prides
itself on tolerance über alles — except, of course, toward conservatives... The
Left captured the culture without firing a shot. The welfare state burgeoned,
and cultural leftists took over influential opinion-leading posts in academia
and the media. They have so thoroughly dominated the national conversation for
an entire generation that there are barely any conservatives left… ‘The Dutch
worry about what's happening to civil society, but they don't understand that
the state cannot make you moral,’ says Livestro [director of the Edmund Burke
Foundation, a conservative think tank]. ‘They fail to see that civil society
starts with personal morality, and with the family.’ The social problems are
connected to the decline of religion and the consequent loss of faith in
traditional Judeo-Christian morality. Some 30 years ago, 60 percent of the
population were at church on Sunday morning; today, it's between 8 and 13
percent. The media have relentlessly mocked religion.[17]

With
Dreher’s comments as a hasty “conservative synopsis” of Holland’s social and
political situation, one can place the dynamics, which led to the state’s
adoption of same-sex marriage in fuller context. At a conference to explore legal
issues related to marriage organized by the International Lesbian and Gay Law
Association and InformaGay (Italy) in June 5-8, 2002, at Turin, Italy, guest
speaker Dr. Kees Waaldijk explained the role of
leftist extremists in Holland’s move to redefine marriage. This Dutch same-sex marriage expert said:

By 1994, with the government [Christian
Social Democratic Government] in its last days, legislation for Registered
Domestic Partnerships (RDPs) was introduced. This helped to generate further
discussion with the public and in the media. Then the left-wing gay movement,
the more radical gay movement, turned around and said, of course there should
be full equality! There was a real idological shift in the old gay movement. It
caused many more people to think about it - what marriage really is. Opposition
from religious groups was of little consequence in the Netherlands. It's a very secular society. There was strong
opposition from some really traditional protestant churches and from the
Bishops, but the rest of the Catholic church didn't say much.[18]

After the defeat of Lubbers’s
coalition government in the May 1994 general election, Wim Kok’s Labor Party
assembled a new coalition. Kok took
office as prime minister in August 1994 and then presided over decisions to
first legalize same-sex partnerships, then to make same-sex marriage the law
followed by legalizing prostitution and euthanasia. Kok’s socialist ideological mind-set is
evident from his background. From
1973 to 1985 Kok served as chair of the Netherlands Federation of Trade
Unions. He also led the European Trade
Union Confederation from 1979 to 1982.
In 1985 Kok left his leadership post at the Netherlands Federation of
Trade Unions and ran for a seat in the lower house of the Dutch
parliament. Kok won the election as a
member of the Social Democratic Labor Party.
The following year he succeeded Joop den Uyl as the Labor Party’s
leader. In 1989, Kok became deputy prime
minister in the coalition government of Ruud Lubbers, leader of the Christian
Democratic Appeal (CDA). In the same
year Kok was named vice chair of the Socialist International (SI), the
worldwide organization of social democratic parties.[19]

The role of the political Left in the
Belgian and Spanish adoptions of same-sex marriage is no less striking,
although unlike Holland, the rise of socialist governance in Belgium and
Spain followed unforeseen, untimely political calamities.

After noting that Belgium's Christian
Democrats had ruled over the country's politics and had secured a code of
religious ethics for decades, Juliane von Reppert-Bismarck, a European affairs
reporter for Dow Jones Newswires in Brussels, asks a rhetorical question
about Belgium’s same-sex marriage legislation:

So what happened in this country whose
state religion is Catholicism, a country that shutters its shops and banks on
Catholic holidays, and where the bad word for gay translates as the shortened
version of pedophile?

In response she writes:

That opportunity materialized in 1999
through a completely unrelated event. Reject motor oil had been routinely added
to Belgian animal feed. When the public learned about it, a massive food scare
ripped across Belgium. People feared that everything from chicken to chocolate
was contaminated by toxic dioxins. National elections were a few weeks away.

In fact the
European Commission ordered governments to track down and destroy all Belgian
poultry products that may have been tainted with a cancer-causing chemical in
what would become Europe's biggest food crisis since the scandal over "mad
cow" disease. The Commission, the executive body of the European Union,
lashed out at Belgium for sitting on the information for weeks and warned that
it might take legal action. Two Belgian cabinet ministers resigned, leaving the
government in a shambles eleven days before the federal election. Von Reppert-Bismark describes the
electorate’s response:

As countries around the world slammed
their doors against Belgian imports, furious Belgian voters ousted the
Christian Democrats from all major political posts. An incoming coalition of liberals and
left-leaning parties promised far-reaching reforms…The new Belgian
government legalized euthanasia and marijuana and outlawed discrimination. The
anti-discrimination law restricted the power of those who opposed gay rights,
and gay marriage became legal. On January 31, 2003, the parliament voted by a
91-22 majority to give full civil marriage rights to gay couples.[20][my underline]

David
Paternotte of the Centre de sociologie politique (C.S.P.), Université
libre de Bruxelles adds:

The LGBT
mobilisation in favour of same-sex couples’ legal recognition occurred in a
period of profound reform of West-European socialism and at a time of crisis
for the Parti socialiste. Leaders were trying to renovate their party to face
the spectacular decline of traditional working class, the political scandals
linked to the party’s old guard and the challenges brought by postmodern
values. They were also threatened by the rise of Ecolo, the French-speaking
green party, which had a clearer stance on gay and lesbian rights….

Secondly, we
need to pay attention to the specific context in which same-sex marriage has
been allowed. Indeed, like in Spain, the access of a new coalition to power in
1999 constituted a decisive moment. The electoral defeat of
Christian-democratic parties after fifty years of almost uninterrupted presence
in the cabinet opened up an opportunity window for ethical questions. The new
coalition, formed by liberals, socialists and greens, wanted to embody
political change and LGBT issues were an easy way to exemplify the rupture.[21]

For
same-sex marriage to be heralded by socialists it had to fit the ideology. Paternotte writes:

Civil marriage
has to be looked at and we must check whether its dramatic transformation over
the last decades is mirrored by social representations. More precisely, two
shifts were needed in left-wing circles to turn the opening-up of civil
marriage into a legitimate claim. Civil marriage had to appear as an equality
mechanism which was suitable for emancipatory politics and its definition had
to be disentangled from (heterosexual) procreation.

Finally, we need to point out
a radical transformation of the meaning of equality, which is also noticeable
in other social sectors…. It is no longer aimed at the realisation of a
specific social project, but rather at the expression of the individual’s will
and the widening of the scope of her choice. Therefore, equality does no longer
stem from a certain vision of what society should be, but is concretised
through a freedom of choice. As a socialist MP asserted during the
parliamentary debates, the opening-up of civil marriage is not “an obligation,
but a freedom, a freedom of choice (…). Every woman or every man should be
allowed to choose and to take on her/his personal choices thanks to the legal
arrangements they are offered. This is the true legislator’s role: to offer
legal arrangements, which respect everyone’s life choices” [Chambre, Compte rendu intégral, plenary
session of 30 January 2003, PLEN 318, p. 38. ]

This latter
remark reveals an interesting paradox, which also characterises other left-wing
parties. Indeed, such a definition of equality is typically liberal, as it
attempts to enhance the individual’s freedom and reduces equality to its formal
elements, here choice and self-determination. [My underline.]

In the
Spanish case, four days before the election in 2004, the center-right Peoples
Partyof Prime Minister José
María Aznarappeared headed for an easy victory
over the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party led by Jose Luis Rodriguez
Zapatero. Everything changed, however, when
al-Qaeda terrorists bombed a number of commuter trains in Madrid killing 191 and
wounded 1,755 others. Many
Spaniards blamed the bombing on the pro-American polices of Aznar, especially
his support of the invasion of Iraq. Still
others bitterly resented Aznar’s hasty and false assertion that the terrorists
were ETA - Basque Separatists, and not Islamic militants bent on retaliation
for Spain's support of the war in Iraq.
The political backlash toppled the Aznar government and resulted
in the withdrawal of Spain’s 1200 soldiers stationed in Iraq and a reversal in
fate for same-sex marriage legislation.

Just a few
months into office Prime Minister Zapatero caught the opposition off guard, giving an
unexpected speech backing same-sex marriage legislation. Jennifer Green, reporting for the Washington
Post, described the major victory for the governing Socialist Party:

Gay marriages will be permitted in
Spain as soon as the law, which passed the Congress of Deputies in a 187 to 147
vote, is published in the official government registry, according to the
parliamentary press office. The Spanish law also gives same-sex couples the
right to adopt children and receive inheritances. The vote was held after Prime Minister Jose
Luis Rodriguez Zapatero unexpectedly took the floor of parliament to speak in
its support. ‘We are expanding the opportunities for happiness of our
neighbors, our colleagues, our friends and our relatives, he said. ‘At the same
time, we are building a more decent society.’ A roar of applause rippled
through the visitors' galleries of the historic 19th-century chamber, and
supporters who had gathered outside the building cheered after votes were
cast. Mariano Rajoy, the leader of the
opposition Popular Party, who was denied the opportunity to address parliament
after Zapatero's surprise appearance, accused the prime minister of dividing
Spanish society. ‘I have the firm
conviction that if Zapatero had called together all the parties, we would have
created a law that would have majority support in parliament and among
Spaniards,’ he said. The Popular Party,
which has favored recognizing civil unions without using the word marriage,
said it would consider an appeal to the Constitutional Court, Spain's highest
tribunal. Rajoy said the issue was ‘not
a debate between Catholics and non-Catholics’ in this country.[22]

Canada aside, the only other country
to enact same-sex marriage is South Africa.
Unlike the sudden turmoils, which gave unexpected empowerment to socialist
parties in Belgium and Spain, the left-wing African Nationalist Congress
has been the dominant political power in South Africa since the first
post-apartheid election in 1994. [Note:
President FW de Klerk lifted the ban on the ANC in 1990. The ANC, in 1994, won 63 percent of the seats
in the National Assembly, in 1999 – 66 percent, and in 2004 – 70 percent.] In addition to being the dominant political party in
South Africa, the ANC is also in solidarity with the Socialist
International, which according to an ANC policy document, “opens the way for
closer interaction with over 140 socialist, social democratic and labour
parties and organizations from all continents."[23] Moreover, within the state of South Africa, a solidarityof labour, socialists and communists has given expression in a Four Party
Alliance of the political Left:

ANC – African National Congress

SACP – South African Communist Party

COSATU – Congress of South African
Trade Unions

SANCO – South African National Civic
Organization

These political organizations share a fundamental
strategic agreement that the primary task is implementation of a National
Democratic Revolution (NDR) founded on the vision of the South African Freedom
Charter originally drafted in 1955 (no mention of “sexual orientation” rights
in the Charter at that time). Moreover,
these goals are seen as a synchronous part of a global movement. In 2002, only four years before the South
African decision to enact same-sex marriage, Michael Sachs, researcher for the
Headquarters of the African National Congress (ANC), described a new movement
emerging under various names: “global solidarity movement,” “global social
movement,” “global civil society.”
Beyond resisting the oppression of capitalist privatization and global
economic organization, Sachs noted a convergence of policy around the issue of
social inequality. He wrote:

The 'Call of the Social Movements'
adopted at the Second World Social Forum (in Port Alegre, Brazil at the
beginning of 2002) declares: ‘We are diverse - women and men, adults and youth,
indigenous people, rural and urban, workers and unemployed, homeless, the
elderly, students, migrants, professionals, peoples of every creed, colour and sexual
orientation.’ The expression of this
diversity is our strength and the basis of our unity. We are a global
solidarity movement, united in our determination to fight against the
concentration of wealth, the proliferation of poverty and inequalities,
and the destruction of our earth. We are living and constructing alternative
systems, and using creative ways to promote them.’[24][My
underline.]

Although not incorporated in the ANC
“Freedom Charter” of 1955, "Sexual orientation" had been included in
the equality protections of the South African Interim Constitution when it was
adopted in 1993, making the new bill of rights the most liberal in the
world. According to human rights watch,
the language in the Constitution is owed to the extraordinary efforts and
advocacy of gay and lesbian activists; to effective coalition-building with
other civil society groups; and to the openness of the African National
Congress, which had taken up gay and lesbian rights in its "Policy
Guidelines for a Democratic South Africa" in 1992.[25] The fact that the ANC struggled as much as
they did (fourteen years later) with the notion of same-sex marriage indicates
the Party had little idea in 1992 that protecting sexual orientation rights
would move wildly beyond job and personal security protections and equal tax
benefits to a bid by gays and lesbians for the state to fully deconstruct all heterosexist
institutions and adopt in their place a homosexist worldview - the crowning
symbol of which is the redefinition of marriage.

In September 2006 (three months before
the same-sex marriage decision), the ANC Whip, the bi-weekly newsletter
of the ANC Caucus, recorded that the Government’s preferred approach to the
issue was to enact “domestic partnerships.”
The newsletter records:

Content Chapter 3: to ensure the
right to equality and dignity of partners in domestic partnerships and to
reform family law, to comply with the provisions of the Bill of Rights,
through: (1)The recognition of the legal status of domestic partners,
regulation of the rights and obligations of domestic partners. Protection of interests of both domestic
partners and interested parties on the termination of domestic partnership; and
(2) Final determination of financial relationships between domestic partners
and interested parties upon termination of domestic partnerships.[26]

The Caucus newsletter also clearly
outlined the “Political Implications” of the bill:

The African National Congress has
passed about 35 pro-sexual orientation laws since it came into government in
1994. This is law reform unprecedented
anywhere in the world. The passing of these pieces of legislation is proof that
the ANC is committed to the values enshrined in the Constitution. This bill, however, has introduced a
number of social and moral challenges based on the traditional definition of
the marriage institution. Secondly, the ruling by the Constitutional Court
that the Parliament has to pass this Bill by December 2006 is likely, unless
processes are fast tracked, to deny maximum participation through public
hearings, especially at Provincial level given the time line requirements for
bills to be processed.

The December 2005 Constitutional
Court’s decision ruling the Government to address the same-sex marriage issue
by the end of 2006 did not dictate how the Parliament might approach the
issue. Those opposed to the “separate
but equal” solution labeled the ANC’s initial proposal as “sexual
apartheid.” By early October, the ANC Government
was split on the issue of recognizing even homosexual unions or
partnerships. A separate ANC Party vote
settled the matter and detailed the nature of Party solidarityin
the end. On October 9, the ANC
voted (outside of Parliament) to support a same-sex marriage bill. According to 365Gay.comnews center staff, the ANC vote assured the bill’s
success. The news center reported:

The party decision also is seen as a stiff rebuke to Jacob Zuma who
last month was forced to apologize for calling gay marriage ‘a disgrace to the
nation and to God.’ The former [ANC] Deputy President is seen as a likely
contender for president but the party vote to support same-sex relationships is
seen as throwing that into question.

The full party support came after members of the national executive
committee reminded party members that the ANC had fought for human rights,
which included gay rights, and equality for all. With the party's full support
there is little chance the bill will be defeated.[27]

ANC member, Patrick Chauke, chair of
the Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee, which was deliberating the bill, was
quoted in the Business Day, a local daily newspaper, as critically
commenting: "you won't find things like this anywhere else in
Africa."[28] Indeed, in pursuit of its Constitutional goal
of zero discrimination the ANC had already endorsed: (1) the state’s
proclamation that gay sodomy and heterosexual intercourse were equal
expressions of sexuality; (2) that motherhood and fatherhood were of no special
importance over same-sex parenting; (3) that marriage had little to do with
child rearing; (4) and that natural heterosexual procreation by the biological
mother and father was of no more preference to the state than alternative
conception means needed in all same-sex relationships to overcome inert sexual
unions. For illustration of this applied
“equality” ideology, Judge Albie Sachs, member of the Constitutional Committee,
the National Executive of the ANC, and justice of South Africa's Constitutional
Court, wrote in a concurring opinion to the court's unanimous 1998 decision
overturning sodomy laws in the country:

The acknowledgement and acceptance of
difference is particularly important in our country where group membership has
been the basis of express advantage and disadvantage. The development of an
active rather than a purely formal sense of enjoying a common citizenship depends
on recognizing and accepting people as they are.... What the Constitution
requires is that the law and public institutions acknowledge the variability of
human beings and affirm the equal respect and concern that should be shown to
all as they are. At the very least, what is statistically normal ceases to be
the basis for establishing what is legally normative. More broadly speaking,
the scope of what is constitutionally normal is expanded to include the widest
range of perspectives and to acknowledge, accommodate and accept the largest
spread of difference. What becomes normal in an open society, then, is not an
imposed and standardized form of behaviour that refuses to acknowledge
difference, but the acceptance of the principle of difference itself, which
accepts the variability of human behaviour.

The invalidation of anti-sodomy laws
will mark an important moment in the maturing of an open democracy based on
dignity, freedom and equality. As I have said, our future as a
nation depends in large measure on how we manage difference. In the past
difference has been experienced as a curse, today it can be seen as a source of
interactive vitality....

A state that recognizes difference
does not mean a state without morality or without a point of view. It does not
banish concepts of right and wrong, nor envisage a world without good and
evil.... What is central to the character and functioning of the state,
however, is that the dictates of the morality which it enforces, and the limits
to which it may go, are to be found in the text and spirit of the Constitution
itself.[29] [My underline.]

Christians wondering about whether to
vote for a political left party, be it in South Africa, Canada, or elsewhere,
should ask themselves what “spirit” is behind the political Left’s propensity
for making an idol out of a man-made constitutions, and condoning anal sex
among homosexual men as a sign of the “maturing of an open democracy based on dignity,
freedom and equality.” The
deadly ecology of anal sex follows no man-made constitution, AIDS and a normative
age at death for gay men of forty are not dignifying realities, banishment from
giving blood and adhering to the condom code for one’s survival are not
expressions of freedom, and an inert sexual relationship is not equal to a
procreative union. Judge Sachs and the
political Left adhere to the idea that morality can be enforced from the spirit
of a human parchment. The idea is
totally anti-Christian, fundamentally humanist, and the condoning of anal sex
is deeply flawed public health policy.
To give the moral nod to sodomy in the way judge Sachs does is simply inexcusable
after two decades of AIDS experience and research.

David Black, in his book The Plague Years: A Chronicle of Aids the
Epidemic of Our Times, explains a key lesson of the consequence of
unfettered individual, rights-based legislation based on situation ethics; a
lesson that the political Left refuses to acknowledge. As
with judge Sachs’ 1998 vision for the South African state, in the 1980s it had
become heresy in America to suggest that moral questions regarding
homosexuality should be publicly confronted, even in a raging AIDS pandemic
then infecting 270 new men every day and estimated to claim 385,000 men by
1990.[30] In the unprecedented AIDS crisis straight
politicians such as New York’s Mario Cuomo felt trapped. He knew if he did nothing, he’d be attacked by
the Right, and if he did something, he’d be attacked by the Left. Black writes:

But why shouldn’t a society confront
questions of morality? The danger comes
not from the debate but from the belief that moral questions are
legislatable. In fact, the courts,
simply by addressing a moral issue, undermine morality…Even if the law [closing
bathhouses] did have an effect - especially if it had an effect - it removed
from the individual the burden of behaving morally. The question becomes not what is right? But what can I get away with? As morality changed from a spiritual to a
legal issue, it lost its private hold over people. Courts replaced conscience. The fight over the bathhouses confused the
moral question (what sex acts should someone with AIDS allow himself to
perform?) with the legal question (what is the government’s responsibility in
promoting public health?).[31]

Christians should not support
or collaborate with political parties that are fundamentally entrenched in
anti-Christian ideologies that endorse patently unscriptural behaviors. Continuing with the South African example a
little longer, Dr. Peter Hammond, representing Christian Action (CA), reveals
the anti-Christian face of South Africa’s political Left, displayed during his
testimony on same-sex marriage. He
writes of his experiences:

We testified that marriage is the
basic building block of society. It provides stability, nurture, training and
protection for the next generation. That is why marriage has always been
protected in law. Any undermining of this foundational institution will have
disastrous and far-reaching implications for civilization. We witnessed
firsthand the absolute contempt which ANC members of Parliament hold for God,
His Law, the Bible and even the voters. They chuckled when we pointed out that
the vast majority of voters opposed this Bill and challenged them to hold a
Referendum on the issue. ‘We don’t need to follow the
electorate, we must lead the masses – in a creative way!’
declared one of the ANC members in the National Council of Provinces when I
challenged him.

Although the Parliamentarians listened
respectfully, and with obvious agreement and nodding of heads, to the pagan
archpriestess Donna Vos of the Circle of the African Moon, they reacted with
great hostility to the Christian presentations opposing the Bill. Archpriestess Donna ‘Dark Wolf’ testified that
‘the pagans, who represent
the oldest religion in the world, that of the Ancient Greeks, Romans and
Druids, whole-heartedly support same-sex marriages and the Civil Union
Bill/Act.’ She asserted that, as people fall in love with a soul,
it is irrelevant what body, gender or parts thereof their partners had. She
asserted:
‘True democracy must respect
all religions, including paganism.’The pagan presentation
claimed that it was ‘unthinkable
that Christianity should continue to manipulate legislation’ as
Christianity was the ‘new
religion,’ paganism as ‘the
oldest religion’ should have pre-eminence. ‘We are bound by nature, trees,
plants, hills… not by the Bible or by the Christian God.’

While the Parliamentarians seemed very
happy to accept the pagan presentation, they vitriolicly attacked the Christian
presentations and representatives. I heard ANC members of Parliament say in
response to our presentation: ‘We
don’t believe in your God. We don’t live by the Bible or by the Christian God.
It’s no good quoting to us what Paul or Isaiah said. We don’t believe in your
Paul or Isaiah.’ Another Parliamentarian claimed that he had
been raised as ‘a strong
Christian’but that he would not impose his own religious views
on his children. They had not been baptized and he does not allow his religious
views to interfere with his politics! ‘We
leave the Bible in church, here in Parliament, the Constitution is
supreme!’ One ANC member
declared: “The Bible was
used to justify Apartheid, so we cannot use the Bible to stop homosexuals from
getting married.”

‘Is it right for you Christians to
impose your morals on everyone else? Do you expect us to defy the
Constitutional Court?’ Another ANC member berated
us: ‘Why drag children into
this Bill? What do children have to do with marriage? This Bill says nothing
about children. We are only talking about a union between two people. If
children result or are adopted that is another matter. It is not an issue in
this Bill. So why are you talking about the children? What do children have to
do about marriage?’[32]

Sehlare Makgetlaneng, head of the Southern
Africa desk at the Africa Institute of South Africa, a Pretoria-based
think-tank, claimed the bill did not reflect the view of Africans anywhere in
the continent:

The bill did not have the approval of
the majority - the minority in the society had actually set the wheels in
motion for the bill in the 1990s, when the constitution was being written.[33]

In the face of such strong feelings
and division, the ANC had issued a three-line whip, the strictest disciplinary
command the party can give its MPs, to compel them to be both present in the
chamber and to vote in favour of the party line supporting the Bill.[34] After demanding full solidarity,
the vote taken in November passed 230 to 41 with three abstentions.

Responding to accusations after the
vote that the Party had refused to allow its MPs to follow their consciences
and/or honestly represent the will of their constituencies, Vytjie
Mentor, the ANC Caucus Chairman, told The Sunday Independent, a South
African newspaper:

There was no such thing as a free vote
or a vote of conscience. How do you give
someone permission to discriminate in the name of the A.N.C.? How do you allow for someone to vote against
the Constitution and the policies of the A.N.C., which is antidiscrimination?[35]

One may credibly speculate on the day
when the ANC will respond in solidarity
to a future claim by bisexual, transgender or polygamous minorities wishing
marriage equality and an end to discrimination on the basis of their sexual
orientation. The hypocrisy and
irrationality of the ANC Caucus Chairman’s political response (above) is
highlighted by the Party’s simultaneous acceptance that marriage officers
(civil servants) need not perform a ceremony for a same-sex couple if doing so
would conflict with his or her “conscience, religion and belief.”

Melanie
Judge, the program manager for OUT, a gay rights advocacy group, credited South
Africa’s liberal Constitution with forcing change. She said:

This has
been a litmus test of our constitutional values. It forced us to consider: What does equality
really mean? What does it look like? Equality does not exist on a sliding
scale.[36]

Epitomizing her assertion of “absolute
constitutional equality,” Ms. Judge said the new provision allowing civil officers
to refuse to marry gay couples on matters of conscience was unconstitutional
and would provoke further legal challenges.
She commented:

We can’t be in the situation where
civil officers can decide who they want to marry and who they don’t want to
marry. They aren’t able to refuse to
marry a black person and a white person. Why are same-sex couples different?[37]

For many
participants, had the bill passed as initially written, South Africa would not
have legalized same-sex marriage, but would have provided civil unions. However, the Government made a last-minute
amendment to the Civil Unions Bill, changing it so as to permit the "voluntary
union of two persons, which is solemnized and registered by either a marriage
or a civil union."

The final bill was opposed by almost
all the opposition parties. The
Democratic Alliance (DA) accused
the African National Congress (ANC) of having misled South Africans during the
proposed law's hearings. DA spokesperson Sandy Kalyan said during the
parliamentary debate on the proposed law:

It is unfortunate that the ANC pulled
the amended version of the Civil Union Bill out of the bottom drawer merely a
day before voting in committee. Surely,
the portfolio committee on home affairs has misled the public in the hearings
because the version before us is not the one presented at all the hearings.

It was unfortunate that the ANC had
forced its MPs to ignore their conscience and vote in favour of the Bill as a
show of loyalty. It was quite
interesting to note how much support there was by the ANC for the section which
refers to marriage officers who may apply to the minister, on the grounds of
conscience, not to conduct unions or marriages for same-sex couples... yet the
ANC will not allow its MPs to vote for this Bill on grounds of conscience.[38]

The Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) said
its principles did not allow it to approve such a law. Party spokesperson Inka Mars said:

The IFP has always advocated strong
family principles and we are ultimately guided by strong moral values. We feel
that there were several other options in relation to this issue that Parliament
did not explore properly. Therefore, we
reject any notion of same-sex unions or marriages and we oppose this Bill.[39]

The
Freedom Front Plus said it is of the view that marriage is an institution
created by God between man and woman, and it would therefore not endorse the
proposed law.[40]

African Christian Democratic Party
(ACDP) leader Kenneth Meshoe described the passage of the Bill as “the
saddestday” of the democratic
Parliament in 12 years. He said while
some forces are trying to convince people that homosexuality was okay, God
considers it "an abomination." Meshoe had warned his MPs that voting in favour of same-sex marriage
was a rejection of God's laws, and those who did so would face divine
wrath. He said the Bill, by inference, "calls
sexual perversion a legitimate alternative lifestyle that should be openly
accepted." He warned:

With this Bill, the ruling party and
all those who support it are inviting serious trouble on themselves, without
even considering the impact this Bill will have on future generations.[41]

And Steve Swart,
a legislator with the ACDP and a proponent of the constitutional amendment,
said the Parliament had ignored the views of ordinary citizens and
international norms. He commented:

We are out
of step with the rest of Africa and with rest of world. The international norm is civil unions, as
opposed to same-sex marriages. What happened today conflicts with the views of
the majority of South Africans.[42]

Returning to the Canadian front, we find
(as demonstrated in the above international example) that there is an
intellectual irony and spiritual paradox in the notion that the political Left
is “progressive” in its revolutionary zeal for social tolerance and religious
diversity. One may be tempted to admire the
fundamentalism and passion empowering the political Left’s homosexist activities
and policies; however, the absurdity of these socialist policies from a
Christian perspective lies in the Left’s allusion that God sanctifies homosexism
and religious diversity. Authentic Christians
(as contrasted with counterfeit believers) know these arguments of the Left to
be grossly fallacious. Moreover, the hypocrisy
and political expediency of the NDP position (indeed, also the positions of the
Liberal Party and the Courts) is revealed by their on-going silence over support
for bisexual (three person) marriages.
This is doubly ironic for the NDP; since they are now boasting of their political
agenda for transsexual equality rights (see below).

Christians know that God instituted
marriage as the covenant (precondition) for righteous opposite sex sexual
relations and that God designed humans as male or female so that the two may
become one flesh through the act of sexual intercourse. Scripture makes no provision for righteous
same-sex sexual relations. The Apostle Matthew
quotes Christ making this point:

Have
you not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and
female. And said, for this cause shall a
man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall
be one flesh. (19:4-5)

Nowhere in Scripture is homosexuality
cast in a positive light; homosexual behavior is universally condemned in the
Bible. The homosexist ideology of the NDP
is therefore, fundamentally anti-Christian.

Nowhere in Scripture does God directly
or indirectly state that religious diversity is “progressive.” To the contrary, the Apostle John quotes
Christ as stating:

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no
man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

In
this light, it is no surprise to find
that the NDP critic for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues should
be a staunch member of the United Church of Canada. [For a full analysis of
United Church doctrines see - UCC: Abject Apostasy.] The Honourable Bill Siksay’s biography reads:

As a lifelong member of the United Church of Canada, Bill has been a
very active layperson in church affairs. He has served as a church
representative on the Victoria University (at the University of Toronto) Board
of Regents. Bill also served on the National Task Force on the Changing Roles
of Women and Men in Church and Society, and he has chaired the church’s National
Pastoral Relations Committee.

Bill has also been an activist with Affirm United, the organization of
gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender United Church members and adherents.
Bill was a candidate for the ministry in the United Church in the late 1970s
and early 1980s. He was one of the first gay or lesbian people to come out in
the process toward ordination, and was a leader of the campaign that saw gay
and lesbian church members secure the right to be considered for ordination and
commissioning in the United Church.[43]

And on 7 November 2007, to mark 40 Years of NDP
struggle for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual and Transgender (LGBTT) rights,
the Party’s Federal Council (in response to the leadership of the Honourable
Bill Siksay) adopted a comprehensive new policy on LGBTT issues. The news release reads:

Ottawa - Forty years ago this month, the New Democratic Party took a
historic stand for equality and justice in Canada.

On November 7, 1967, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the appeal of
George Everett Klippert, who had been condemned to indefinite imprisonment for
consensual sexual relations with other men. The next day, Tommy Douglas, the
first leader of the NDP, rose in the House of Commons and called for
homosexuality to be decriminalized. [click here to hear what Pierre Trudeau, Robert Stanfield and Tommy Douglas had to say about the Bill. Douglas referred to homosexuality as a sin and a pyschological aberration, but not a criminal act.]

Since then, the NDP has never ceased to lead the pack in defence of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and transsexual rights. New Democrats
succeeded in banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, tirelessly
worked for equal marriage, and are fighting today for international LGBTT
rights and for an end to discrimination based on gender identity.

As proof of its firm resolve to stand up for full equality and human
rights, the NDP marked this important anniversary by unanimously adopting a
comprehensive range of policies on LGBTT rights during its Federal Council in
Winnipeg on November 3.

“This action by the NDP Federal Council gives us the clearest and most
comprehensive policies on LGBTT issues of any party,” said Bill Siksay,[44]

The following are some pertinent extracts
from the policy declaration:

WHEREAS the New Democratic Party boasts a proud history
of fighting for the rights of sexual and gender minorities …THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED that the NDP adopt the following policies:

• that the Government
should pursue the objective of prohibiting sexual orientation and gender
identity as reasons for discrimination in the international human rights
agreement;

• that refugees who flee
their country following discrimination because of their sexual orientation or
gender identity should have the right to fair review of their case by public
servants, requiring the adequate training of public servants and raising of
their consciousness regarding the treatment of refugees;

WHEREAS no province allows
changing the legal sex assignment without medical certification of the sex
change surgery (while it is possible in the United Kingdom and in some American
States), which causes endless legal and official problems for transgendered
people…BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, as a first step, the NDP undertake to
abandon its own practices which could be harmful to the full participation of
transgender and transsexual people:

1. That it affirm that, as
far as the party is concerned, gender is a matter of self-definition,
and therefore that people are of the gender with which they identify; and

2. That it replace on its membership forms,
the choice between “male” and “female” with “woman” check-box to the list of
equity groups with which members can identify, thereby allowing us to maintain
our usual activities in promoting the participation of women, while recognizing
the possibility of multiple modes of gender identification;[45][my
underline]

The worldview behind such policy declarations
is radically opposed to the Christian worldview. Where in Scripture does it say “gender is a matter of self-determination”? Where in Scripture does it say God made “multiple modes of gender
identification?” Does the Honourable
NDP critic for LGBTT issues (or his Party and church) care what the Bible
states?

The extremism of the NDP agenda on sexual
orientation issues is evident when one realizes that married homosexual couples
represent 0.0007 of the population.
Moreover, the portion of all Canadian couples (married and common-law)
that are homosexual is 0.6 percent, and of this fraction of a percent, only
27.5 percent are in marriages.[46] Note also that in
March 2006, Statistics Netherlands released estimates on the number of same-sex
marriages each year - 2,500 in 2001, 1,800 in 2002, 1,200 in 2004, and 1,100 in
2005. In addition to the sliding
interest in homosexual marriage, the agency also notes that marriage in general
(both same- and opposite-sex) has fallen off noticeably over the past five years.[47]
[See also Dutch Decline: Losing Interest in Matrimony.]

And now a brief look at the Bloc Québécois will reveal much about the impact Gilles Duceppe
has on policy implementation, particularly related to the Party’s full adoption
of a homosexist worldview. The
Bloc Québécois polarization to the homosexist position
is as total as the NDP, although slightly slower in arriving at that position. In 1999,
only 17 of 35 Bloc MPs voted against the traditional definition of marriage;
however, by 2003, only three Bloc MPs voted in
favour of traditional marriage and, on Bill C-250, there were no dissenting
votes. Five MPs of 54 came out against
Bill C-38. Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe would not allow a free vote in
2006 on the motion to restore traditional marriage. Bloc MP, Louise Thibault, quit to sit as an
independent over his directive.
Columnist David Akin reported:

She [Tibault] says that she
cannot be part of a party that doesn’t allow for dissent and she blames Duceppe
for being too rigid. Thibault voted to overturn Canada’s same-sex marriage
legislation. Duceppe had ordered his caucus to vote in support of same-sex
marriage rights.[48]

EGALE gave Bloc Leader
Gilles Duceppe an “A” rating and the Party a “B.” The agency said:

Gilles Duceppe was personally a strong
supporter of the equal marriage bill and equality for lesbian, gay, bi and
trans people generally, and spoke eloquently about why equal marriage was the
right thing to do. He enjoys a perfect voting record in Parliament on LGBT
issues.

CaucusGrade: 87% on equal
marriage; 95% on hate propaganda. Based
on the percentage of times MPs voted in favour of legislation furthering
equality for lesbian, gay, bi and trans people, versus those that voted
against. Absences are not included. The Bloc caucus ranked second of the four
parties with elected MPs. 100% is a perfect score.[49]

When the NDP
and Bloc votes are removed from the Canadian political puzzle, what remains is
the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and a few Independent MPs (see table
below). Had only these parties voted
after 1999 the results would have been reversed in all cases. Traditional marriage would have prevailed;
the state’s tradtional heterosexist worldview undergriding the Consitution
would have been preserved along with “tolerance” and “protection” of homosexual
rights. After all, in 1999, when the
Chretien Government so strongly endorsed traditional marriage, Canada had the
same Constitution and the same Charter of Rights and Freedoms referred to in
the 2004-05 deliberations.

Notwithstanding the option of civil
unions, a path taken by most countries that have faced the same-sex marriage
issue, the Liberal Party reversed its opinion in 2003 to one advocating the
redefinition of marriage. And in spite
of the fact that the Supreme Court refused to declare the exclusive traditional
definition of marriage unconstitutional in 2004, the Liberals launched their
new position under the slogan: “It’s the Charter Stupid!” Little wonder the Party became highly
fractured by a string of policy positions fundamentally moving the Party in
line with the NDP.

EGALE gave the Liberal Party
a “B” rating and Leader Paul Martin an “A” going into Election 2006. The agency said:

Paul Martin provided effective
leadership on equal marriage. His government introduced the equal marriage bill
(Bill C-38) and he overcame Conservative delay tactics and threats from some in
his own caucus to win its passage. Mr. Martin spoke eloquently about the need
for the equal marriage bill in order to comply with the Charter. Paul Martin’s government is generally
supportive of advances in trans equality. His government also supports the
National Day Against Homophobia.

CaucusGrade: 73% on equal
marriage; 69% on hate propaganda. Based
on the percentage of times MPs voted in favour of legislation furthering
equality for lesbian, gay, bi and trans people, versus those that voted
against. Absences are not included. The Liberal caucus ranked third of the four
parties with elected MPs. 100% is a perfect score. The Liberal caucus is divided on LGBT issues,
with many strong supporters and quite a number of strong opponents.[50]

“Our lukewarm minister” and like-minded Christians in
a quandary over who to vote for in Election 2006 (the Liberal Sponsorship
Scandal notwithstanding), need to fully recognize the deceitful manipulations
and misleading propaganda surrounding same-sex marriage issued by the Liberal
Party leading up to and including the Election.
The following series of extracts from House of Commons debates reveals
the Liberal reversal on the constitutionality of traditional marriage and
flip-flop on the human rights claim to redefine marriage inclusive of
homosexuals. The following Hansard extracts
also reveal the Liberal’s fallacious claim for the need to use the
notwithstanding clause in order to prevent marriage redefinition. The House of Commons references in total reveal
a hidden and manipulative homosexist agenda by the Party. Lastly, the extracts depict a Liberal Prime
Minister bent on ignoring the democratic process in forcing same-sex marriage
through Parliament. In sum, the Liberal
Party’s homosexist political agenda cannot be differentiated from that of the
NDP in Election 2006, even though Egale gives the Liberal Party and its leader
a lesser rating.

Motivated, in 1998,
by concern that the Liberal Party had a secret agenda for enacting homosexual
marriage, Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Liberal) moved that Bill
C-225, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and the
Interpretation Act, 1997, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said:

“Mr. Speaker, the
purpose of this bill is to ensure that a marriage is void unless it is a
marriage between one unmarried man and one unmarried woman.”

One of the
things that has been stated in a letter by both the previous and present
justice ministers is the following: ‘The definition of marriage in federal law
is not in a statute passed by Parliament, but is found in what is called the
federal common law, dating from an 1866 British case of Hyde and Hyde v
Woodmansee. This case has been applied consistently in Canada and states that
no marriage can exist between two persons of the same sex, or between multiple
wives or husbands. Thus, the definition of marriage is already clear in law in
Canada as the union of two persons of the opposite sex.’ That is what the justice ministers have said
in writing. What is important to note in this statement is that the definition
of marriage is to be found in federal common law. Common law is, plain and
simple, judge made law. Therefore, it can be changed at any time by judges. There
is no statute to guide or restrain judges.

The Department
of Justice has indicated in writing reasons why it does not support the bill.
According to the Department of Justice one of the reasons is that it is clear
in federal law what a marriage is. That is not an accurate statement of the
law. Why do I say this? Because there are numerous continuing challenges in our
courts to this definition, both by those who wish same sex unions to be
recognized as marriages and those whose religious beliefs permit multiple wives
or husbands.

One case will
illustrate this point. The case is Layland and Beaulne v Ontario Minister of
Consumer and Commercial Relations, Attorney General of Canada, et al. In this
case, decided by three judges of Ontario in the divisional court, two male
homosexuals sued to force the province of Ontario to issue them a licence to
marry. If as the justice department states the definition of marriage is
already clear in law, we would have expected a unanimous decision against the
applicants. In fact, the decision was two to one. I will read some brief
excerpts from the dissenting judgment: ‘I am of the view that restricting
marriages to heterosexual couples infringes and violates the applicants'
section 15(1) charter rights and that such violation cannot be justified under
section 1 of the charter. I also agree with the position of the church that
there is no common law prohibition against same sex marriages in Canada.’ In this case the church was the
Metropolitan Community Church of Ottawa. She goes on: ‘In the opening paragraph
of these reasons, I have noted that the common law must grow to meet society's
expanding needs.... To say that the state must preserve only traditional
heterosexual families is discriminatory and contrary to the equal benefits and
guarantees they’—that is, homosexuals—‘are entitled to at law.... A rule with a
discriminatory purpose may not be justified under section 1’—of the charter.
‘Further, I agree with counsel for the applicants that there is no rational
connection between supporting heterosexual families and denying homosexuals the
right to marry. It is illogical and has no beneficial impact on the goal. To
deny them the right to marry is a complete denial of their relationship and a
denial of their constitutional rights.’

If the law is clear as the justice minister and the
justice department state that it is, then this judge should never have made
these statements in a dissenting judgment. The fact is that in the next such
application, the dissenting judge could find an ally and the decision could be
two to one in the opposite direction. This is entirely possible and predictable
since the current law is judge made common law. If the law is to be clear as
the justice ministers would have us believe, it must be confirmed in statutory
form so that a judge cannot draw the conclusions drawn by the dissenting judge
in Leyland.[51]

Mr. Wappel went on
to state:

Some speakers missed some of the points. For example,
the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas said that no one is shirking the debate. No
one in here is shirking the debate because we are all here debating. However
one of the stated reasons of the justice department for opposing the bill is
that it risks opening further debate, particularly if referred to committee.
The Department of Justice is shirking the debate, not members of parliament in
the House of Commons. Some speakers want to redefine marriage. I remind members
that the position of the federal government, the position of the Government of
Canada, the position of the minister, is that the law I quoted at the beginning
is the law of Canada. The Department of Justice will continue to defend that
law. I am trying to put that in statutory form so that the judges of the
country can see that the people of the country, as represented by their members
of parliament, have spoken and give them guidance on the position of the
government. Marriage is the voluntary union between one man and one woman who
are not otherwise married. In fact that is what the majority of people believe
a marriage should be. We are not talking about benefits. We are not talking
about pensions. We are talking about the concept of marriage.[52]

In 1999, Lawyer, Justice Minister and
Attorney General, Anne McClellan, said regarding a Government motion to retain
traditional marriage:

We
on this side agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important
institution in the lives of many Canadians.
It plays an important part in all societies worldwide, second only to
the fundamental importance of family to all of us…the definition of marriage is
already clear in law…Let me state again for the record that the government has
no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same-sex
marriages. No jurisdiction worldwide
defines a legal marriage as existing between same-sex partners.[53]

The definition of marriage, which has been
consistently applied in Canada, comes from an 1866 British case which holds
that marriage is ‘the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all
others.’ That case and that definition are considered clear law by ordinary
Canadians, by academics and by the courts. The courts have upheld the
constitutionality of that definition.

The Ontario court, general division, recently upheld
in Layland and Beaulne the definition of marriage. In that decision a majority
of the court stated the following:

- unions of persons of the same sex are not ‘marriages’,
because of the definition of marriage. The applicants are, in effect, seeking
to use s. 15 of the Charter to bring about a change in the definition of
marriage. I do not think the Charter has that effect.

One may then ask why we are here today and why we are
using the already limited time of the House to debate a motion, on which, I
suspect, there will be no fundamental disagreement inside or outside the House.

I am aware, as are other ministers,
that recent court decisions and resulting media coverage have raised concern
around the issue of same sex partners. It appears that the hon. member believes
that the motion is both necessary and effective as a means to keep the
Government of Canada from suddenly legislating the legalization of same sex
marriages. That kind of misunderstanding of the intention of the government
should be corrected.

Let me state again for the record that the government
has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same
sex marriages. No jurisdiction worldwide defines a legal marriage as existing
between same sex partners. Even those few European countries such as Denmark,
Norway and Holland, which have recently passed legislation giving recognition
to same sex relationships and extending some of the same benefits and
responsibilities as available to married spouses, maintain a clear distinction
in the law between marriage and same sex registered partnerships.

Norway's ministry published a statement in 1994 that
makes this distinction clear. Although a same sex relationship may have many of
the same needs, the Norwegian government clarified that it, the same sex
partnership, can —never be the same as marriage, neither socially nor from a
religious point of view. (Registered partnership) does not replace or compete
with heterosexual marriage—(and the) opportunity for homosexuals to register
their partnerships will not lead to more people opting for homosexual
relationships rather than marriage.

I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to
change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues
around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians. The courts have ruled
that some recognition must be given to the realities of unmarried cohabitation
in terms of both opposite sex and same sex partners.

I strongly believe that the message to the government
and to all Canadian governments from the Canadian public is a message of
tolerance, fairness and respect for others.[54]

And three years later (November 2002),
Justice Minister Martin Cauchon, under Prime Minister Paul Martin, outlined
civil unions as a constitutionally sound alternative to the marriage
issue. In his department’s discussion
paper titled “Marriage and Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Unions” under the
sub-title “Marriage could remain an opposite-sex institution. What would this be like?”the
Department wrote:

If Parliament chooses to keep marriage, as it is, that
is the ‘union of one man and one woman,’ this opposite-sex meaning could be set
out explicitly in a new federal law. In
that case, this would be a clear expression of what Parliament believes
marriage is, but would not address the equality concerns of same-sex couples.

If Parliament wished to
also address some of the equality concerns, it would enact a new federal
statute creating a new registry that would be deemed equivalent to marriage for
the purposes of federal laws and programs.
This new civil union or domestic partner registry would either be open
only to same-sex couples and to opposite-sex couples who choose not to
marry. The federal statute creating this
new registry could include a provision stating that marriage is an opposite-sex
institution.[55]

The
Justice Department discussion paper went as far to characterize, “What are others doing?”

Canada is not the first country in the world to
address whether and how to legally recognize same-sex unions. Indeed, Canada is coming to the debate later
than many countries. Several countries
have debated this issue for many years and have come up with a variety of
approaches, ranging from same-sex marriage in the Netherlands to the legal
recognition of domestic partners, registered partnerships and civil unions in
Scandinavia, parts of Europe and parts of the United States. Although some of these approaches appear to
be similar, each is quite different, as it has been created to fit the
particular society and to comply with the specific constitutional and legal
structures in each country. Most
countries have decided to retain marriage as an opposite-sex institution,
and none has decided to leave marriage exclusively to religion and stop
recognizing it in law.[56]

Justice
Minister Cauchon was well aware of the
importance of the same-sex marriage decision and the viable options. He wrote in the “The Message from the
Minister” in the 2002 Justice Department discussion paper:

Marriage has been widely debated in recent years. Perhaps no single issue touches more
people…But marriage is not just about law.
Challenges to the opposite-sex meaning of marriage bring a new focus to
the continuing debate about the future of marriage in Canada…People in
Canada and their representatives must now decide whether marriage should remain
an opposite-sex institution, perhaps along with the creation of a new registry
for civil unions that would be deemed equivalent to marriage for the purposes
of federal law and programs, or be changed to include same-sex couples or cease
to be reflected in law.[57]

So what happened to these
Liberal promises to protect traditional marriage and consider compromise
alternative solutions? Mr. Russ Hiebert
(South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC) summarized the Progressive
Conservative perspective on the Liberal’s flip-flop to the House:

No one would debate that the Supreme Court of Canada
has set itself up as the defender of minority rights in this country. If this
issue was really a question about the fundamental human rights, as the Prime
Minister claims, then why did the high court not say so. The government asked the high court a direct
question: Is there a constitutional requirement to redefine marriage? The court
refused to answer. It said that it was merely a political question for
Parliament to decide. Why is this
government pursuing this? Let us take a look at the history of this issue. In
the House of Commons and in the courts the government took the public position
until June 2003 that marriage was the union of one man and one woman. Suddenly,
just days after the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that marriage should be
redefined to include any two persons, the government reversed course 180
degrees. It completely flip-flopped on this all-important issue.

What happened? Did the government have a remarkable
conversion experience? Did it have a revelation of a brand new human right than
on other national or international court of justice or even the UN commission
on human rights has ever recognized? What changed in the course of literally a
few days to suddenly convince the Liberal government of this new right? Is there another explanation? Did the
government decide long before this issue ever made it to the courts to pursue
the redefinition of marriage in law? Did the government in fact have a hidden
agenda all along, a hidden agenda that was first exposed publicly in June 2003,
a hidden agenda that had to remain hidden for years because too many Liberal
MPs in the backbenches would not tolerate it without the courts taking the
lead.

There is evidence to support this proposition. First,
the federal government has given same sex marriage advocates, Egale, hundreds
of thousands of dollars over the years to support their litigation. Second, the Liberals have given millions more
to the court challenges program which has funded numerous other intervenors in
these court cases. The court challenges program even funded the litigation
strategy meetings that led to marriage being challenged in the courts in the
first place. Third, there is the
extremely tight relationship between Egale and past and present prime ministers
and justice ministers. According to a National Post editorial of March 1, 2000,
the former justice minister, now Deputy Prime Minister,[Anne McLellan] ‘Already
agreed with Egale to consult them before deciding whether or not to seek leave
to appeal. Egale simply told the minister what to do and she did it. Her
secretive collusion with Egale, with whom she pretends to have an adversarial
relationship in court, raises more than political questions. It raises
questions of ministerial ethics as well.’ There are no legal reasons for
redefining marriage but are there even legitimate political reasons for doing
so?[58]

Only a few
weeks earlier, Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Liberal) also
criticized the Liberals for the flip-flop:

Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear that absolutely
no one in my party sought to vet my speech in any way. What I say today are my
own words and I will stand by them.

This debate is truly an historic occasion for what is
at stake is the future of the most vital institution in our nation, marriage
and the family. Bill C-38, if enacted, will change the definition of marriage
in Canada to include same sex couples. The bill states, ‘Marriage, for civil
purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.’

This proposed definition is one that both I and my
wife Evelyn, and millions of other Canadians find unnecessary, illogical and
morally offensive. Opponents include members of every political party and no
political party, of every faith and of no particular faith. Same sex marriage
is an oxymoron because it denies the heterosexual prerequisite of true
marriage. It is a real threat to marriage and the family which is the basic
foundation of all human societies.

Marriage
and the family existed long before any legislature decided to regulate them.
For centuries they have been central to society, contributing to its social
cohesion and fundamental structure...Marriage and the family promote the
psychological, social and economic well-being of all members of the family
unit...The fundamental nature of marriage inheres in, among other things, its
central role in human procreation...Marriage and family life are not inventions
of the legislature; rather, the legislature is merely recognizing their social
importance.

Rather than attacking marriage in a misguided effort
to treat same sex couples fairly, our courts and our governments should be
protecting the institution of marriage and defending the traditional
definition.

In October 2001, in a decision which upheld the
opposite sex requirement of marriage, Mr. Justice Pitfield of the supreme court
of British Columbia emphasized the fundamental role of marriage when he stated: ‘The state has a
demonstrably genuine justification in affording recognition, preference, and
precedence to the nature and character of the core social and legal arrangement
by which society endures...The gain to society...of the deep-rooted and
fundamental legal institution of opposite-sex marriage outweighs the
detrimental effect of the law on the petitioners.’

In other words, traditional marriage is a unique and
vital relationship on which the future of humanity depends. As such, it does
not offend the Charter to treat this special relationship in a preferential
manner. True marriage results in the unifying act of sexual intercourse and is
reproductive in type.

Robert P. George addresses this point in his article ‘Same
Sex Marriage and Moral Neutrality.’ He states: ‘What most of the proponents of
same-sex marriage fail to realize is that the unity of spouses is distinct from
any other kind of unity. What makes it distinct is the reproductive-type act,
whereby a man and a woman become a single reproductive principle. This
distinction makes marriage intrinsically ordered to the good of procreation as
well to the good of spousal unity, and these goods are tightly bound together.’

Repeatedly one hears that same sex marriage is a
matter of human rights or minority rights and that to prohibit same sex
relationships from being called marriage is unfairly discriminatory under our
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A plethora of public opinion polls shows that
Canadians are divided on this point about evenly. Expert opinion is certainly
divided even in the legal community.

As others have noted, those who claim same sex
marriage is a human right cannot point to a single ruling by any national or
international court, including the United Nations, or indeed by a human rights
tribunal to support those arguments. Some people have even tried to draw an
analogy between the women's rights and the black civil rights movements with
the demand for same sex marriage. This analogy is utterly false. However
well-intentioned its proponents, only by a misreading of history and the use of
specious logic can one possibly arrive at such patently false conclusions.

Millions of Canadian women and many black persons,
including personal friends of mine, feel insulted by this false analogy. To
equate their legitimate demands for equal and just treatment consistent with
natural moral law with the illegitimate demands for same sex marriage in
contravention of natural moral law is illogical. It is equally illogical to
argue that the natural extension of protecting individual rights of gays, which
I and most Canadians support, is that two gays in a sexual relationship somehow
have the right to co-op the term marriage to describe their relationship. The Charter
does not speak to group rights, even a group of two people. Rather, it speaks
solely and exclusively to individual rights.

It should be noted that some gays and lesbians are
most eloquent and persuasive opponents of same sex marriage. Consider the words
of John McKellar, Executive Director of HOPE, Homosexuals Opposed to Pride
Extremism, who has stated:
‘..[it is] selfish and rude for the gay community to push same
sex marriage legislation and redefine society's traditions and conventions for
our own self-indulgence. Federal and provincial laws are being changed and the
traditional values are being compromised just to appease a tiny, self-anointed
clique...’

I certainly agree with Mr. McKellar and with Bishop
Ronald Fabbro of the Roman Catholic Diocese of London, who states: ‘…the issue is one of the common good
of society, rather than one of individual rights. We have seen, in the last few
decades, factors that have led to the devaluing of marriage, such as the
increase in common-law unions and more lax divorce laws. Our concern is that
this change in the definition will further devalue marriage.’

The proponents of same sex marriage argue that no harm
will be done to marriage and society if marriage is reconstructed to include
same sex relationships. They note that gays and lesbians are being married in
much of Canada currently and the sky has not fallen. Such facile and simplistic
arguments totally ignore considerable expert advice which warns about the
future long term erosion of marriage and the family if we surrender to the same
sex lobby. [See also Dutch
Decline: Losing Interest in Matrimony]

Lesbian theorist Ladelle McWhorte argues that if gay
people are: ‘...allowed
to participate as gay people in communities and institutions [heterosexuals]
claim as theirs, our presence will change those institutions and practices
enough to undermine their preferred version of heterosexuality and, in turn,
they themselves will not be the same.’

Yale University's expert legal theorist William
Eskridge, an openly gay man, candidly concedes that: ‘Gay experience with
families we choose delinks family from gender, blood, and kinship. Gay families
of choice are relatively ungendered, raise children that are biologically
unrelated to one or both parents, and often form no more than a shadowy
connection between the larger kinship groups.’

McGill University Professor Daniel Cere argues that
the recent judgments in favour of same sex marriage are based on a vision which
would disconnect children from their natural parent and that parenthood is
reduced to nothing more than a functional activity separate from procreation.

If Bill C-38 becomes law, I sincerely hope these
experts are wrong. However, the unmistakeable lesson of history is that they
are right.

The legislation reconfirms the existing guarantee of
religious freedom by which religious officials cannot be made to officiate at
wedding ceremonies in contravention of their religious beliefs. So far, and
with good reason, religious authorities in Canada do not feel very reassured on
this point. It is easily predictable that this so-called guarantee will be
challenged by gay and lesbian activists in a variety of ways. Given the track
record of our Canadian courts, whenever religious freedom has clashed with
supposed gay rights, it is all too obvious that religious leaders should be
very concerned.

Religious leaders and Canadians who embrace religious
values not only have the right but the duty to speak out in this debate. This
is our country too, and we have every right to oppose this most serious threat
to the cornerstone of our society: marriage and the family. The argument
that we must be silent as per some erroneous and nebulous notion of the
separation of church and state displays an incredible ignorance of Canadian
history and the very founding of this nation in 1867.

In light of the inexorable judicial activism we have
witnessed in the post-charter years, it seems clear to me that ultimately there
is only one way to preserve the traditional definition of marriage: the use of
the notwithstanding clause. The Leader of the Opposition argues that there is a
way to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, short of using the
notwithstanding clause. I will not repeat his arguments, but if his opinion
proves to be legally correct, I will gladly support such a course of action.
Millions of other Canadians would surely agree as well. For me, the use of the
clause should be a last resort on vital issues and if it proves to be the only
option, I support using it.

The Prime Minister argues that the use of the
notwithstanding clause in this case would imperil the rights of all minorities
who, in future, could find themselves threatened by the use of the clause to
deny them their rights. Again, this argument equates the illegitimate demand
for same sex marriage to the legitimate demand of other minorities for equal
rights. With all due respect to the Prime Minister, it is illogical,
hyperbolic and rather less than convincing to millions of Canadians, including
legal experts.

May I remind those critics who vilify this clause,
that it is section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Indeed, it can be
argued that without this clause, the Charter would never have been agreed to by
the political leaders of Canada in 1981. Therefore, should there prove to be no
other option, I call again on the Prime Minister to invoke this clause and
defend the only logical and valid definition of marriage, the traditional
definition.

The Prime Minister further has stated that we cannot
return to the past, that is, retain the traditional definition of marriage ‘with
a simple snap of the fingers’. Recall that incredibly it was a simple snap of
the legal fingers of three judges in Ontario that instantly redefined marriage
in June 2003. This shockingly arrogant ruling is an insult to the people and
Parliament of Canada. At that time, as I served on the Justice Committee, I
called for the ruling to be appealed by the federal government. The failure to
do so is clearly the reason that the Supreme Court refused to address itself to
the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage, which was
question four in the reference to the court. Surely that time, when the Justice
Committee hearings were reduced to a pathetic farce, should be recorded as one
of the most disgraceful and duplicitous moments in the history of our
parliamentary deliberations as a nation. It was also the quintessence of
judicial activism at its worst.

I further call again on the Prime Minister to extend
to all Liberal members of Parliament, including cabinet ministers, a free vote
of conscience. This is no mundane piece of legislation. It is one of the most
important decisions any Canadian Parliament has made or will make.[59]

On June 6, Liberal MP Pat O'Brien
announced his departure from the Liberal party to sit as an Independent because
he did not like how the Party was handling hearings on the same-sex marriage
legislation. He said at the time:

I've taken the
only course of action I can take and still feel good about myself. I had assurances it would be meaningful and
fair from the prime minister. That's not what's happening, in my judgment.[60]

O'Brien also said he could not accept the rush by the
Liberal government to redefine marriage.

Once again, the Christian reader needs to challenge voting
positions that essentially refute, ignore, or otherwise diminish the importance
of the arguments put forward by Parliamentarians like Tom Wappel and Pat
O’Brien. To declare as “our lukewarm
minister” did on the eve of Election 2006 - that
he has no idea who he should vote for - is an astoundingly ill informed and
weak Christian witness. The reality of
the Gomery Commission findings of criminal corruption in the Liberal Party (Gomery
investigated the so-called “Sponsorship Scandal”) and the Commission’s
declaration of a "culture of entitlement" existing within the
Liberal Government, serves as “icing” on top of an all together toxic “cake” (for
Christian voters) that the Liberal Party had baked going into Election
2006.

Moving on to the political Right, there are inherent reasons
for the usual labeling of evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians as members
of the “religious Right.” If you recognize
that the traditional worldview behind the constitution and most institutions of
governance within Canada is Christian, and that the liberalization of societal
values over the recent decades has been at the cost of Christian values – i.e. a
zero-sum dynamic, then it is not difficult to recognize the natural linkage in
mindset between small “c” conservatives and orthodox Christians. Equally obvious, we should not expect EGALE
or other liberal activist agencies to ever be endorsing parties or policies of the
political Right. Indeed, EGALE
gave both the Conservative Party and its Leader Steven Harper an “F” rating
during Election 2006. The agency said:

While Mr.
Harper has long opposed advances in equality, for the first time ever he is
seeking to take away equality rights. On the first day of the election campaign
Stephen Harper told reporters that if he becomes Prime Minister he will re-open
the issue in Parliament, with the goal of introducing legislation defining
marriage as a man and a woman. He maintains that he can do this without using
the notwithstanding clause, despite the consensus of legal experts who say he
is not being honest with Canadians.

Caucus Grade on LGBT issues: 3% on
equal marriage; 3% on hate propaganda.
Based on the percentage of times MPs voted in favour of legislation
furthering equality for lesbian, gay, bi and trans people, versus those that
voted against. Absences are not included. The Conservative caucus ranked last
of the four parties with elected MPs. 100% is a perfect score.[61]

In concluding
this Left, Centre and Right political analysis, the testimony of the Honorable Ms. Rona Ambrose (Edmonton—Spruce Grove, CPC)
will be used to encapsulate the policies of the Right regarding same-sex
marriage.

She said before the
House in 2005:

Marriage cases ruling in favour of same sex marriage
began in 2002. In 2002, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that
defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman represented a charter
infringement. La Cour supérieure du Québec also ruled that the characterization
of marriage as a heterosexual institution represented a violation of charter
equality rights. In 2003, the
British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed a lower court judgment that upheld
the common law bar to same sex marriage.
On September 16, 2003, an opposition motion expressing Parliament's
support for the traditional definition of marriage was defeated in the House of
Commons by a vote of 137 to 132. It was only four years earlier, in June 1999,
however, that the exact same motion passed, with large support from many
Liberals for the traditional definition of marriage. In January 2004 the government referred an
additional question to the Supreme Court. Question 4 asked the following: Is
the opposite-sex requirement for marriage for civil purposes, as established by
the common law and set out for Quebec in section 5 of the Federal Law-Civil Law
Harmonization Act, No. 1, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms?

The fourth question was an important question. The
Prime Minister had hoped that the Supreme Court would return with the
imperative that Parliament must pass a law sanctioning marriage for homosexual
couples. However, the Supreme Court did not do that and mandated Parliament to
examine, debate and potentially legislate on this issue. In its decision released on December 9,
2004, the Supreme Court said that the federal government has the jurisdiction
to redefine marriage to include same sex couples. It also said that churches are protected
under the Charter of Rights in maintaining the traditional definition of
marriage, but that legislation that would specifically protect religious
organizations is beyond the constitutional power of the federal
government. What this means is that the
federal government determines the definition of marriage but the provinces
determine how a couple can marry.

The court did not answer the question of whether the
traditional definition of marriage in the common law violates the Charter of
Rights. Instead of declaring the traditional definition of marriage
unconstitutional, the court has made it clear that it is Parliament that must
define the word marriage. Importantly, the majority of people who oppose this
legislation favour the insurance and the protection of equal rights for
homosexual couples and they favour formal state recognition of committed
homosexual relationships.

So at some point we have to ask ourselves why the
government is not following the lead of most Canadians and searching for a
middle ground that will protect the rights of all Canadians equally, recognize
homosexual unions and respect tradition at the same point. The government,
after all, likes to talk about Canada's ability to broker resolutions. It likes
to talk about Canadians as being the sort of people who search for compromise
and search for the middle position.
Canadians have done that. The Leader of the Opposition has done that.
The government, on the other hand, has labelled these Canadians intolerant and
bigoted. This language is unhelpful, and the government is fighting the
national consensus on this issue. The
government has refused to look beyond its own vision on this issue. It has
refused to seek the middle ground, and in doing so, it has refused to take
seriously the considerations and views of Canadians.

The Leader of the Opposition is the only leader in the
House who has discussed the matter with Canadians and has searched for a
compromise in order to give all Canadians a voice. In December, the Leader of the Opposition
announced three proposals for effectively considering the marriage question.
These are as follows. The first proposal would retain the traditional
definition of marriage. The second proposal would ensure that same sex couples
are afforded equal spousal benefits. The third proposal would include
substantive provisions in the legislation to protect not only religious
organizations but also to protect public officials who have objections due to
reasons of religion or conscience. With regard to the first proposal, I am
proud to be voting the wishes of my constituents, one of which is to support
and maintain the traditional definition of marriage. I am also proud to be able
to vote in favour of providing equal rights to gay and lesbian couples,
something my constituents have also been clear in their support for.

My constituents reflect the majority of Canadians who
believe in a balanced approach: legislation which accords equal benefits and
status to same sex couples in a recognized union, with an understanding that to
do this we do not need to change the definition of marriage. There is no need or imperative to reject the
middle ground put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. I support the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court has not said that we must change
the definition of marriage. The Supreme Court has not said that the traditional
definition of marriage is in violation of the charter. The Supreme Court has
not said that recognition of same sex marriage as a union is in violation of
the charter. The Supreme Court has said none of this despite the arguments put
forward by the government.

With regard to the third proposal, by protecting the
rights of religious institutions Parliament can support the rights of churches,
mosques, synagogues and temples to recognize, perform and solemnize marriages
on their own terms. Parliament can ensure that churches have the right to
privately and publicly preach their beliefs related to marriage. Parliament can
ensure that justices of the peace and civil marriage commissioners are not
forced to solemnize marriages against their own consciences. Parliament can
also preserve the charitable and economic benefits that churches enjoy as
public institutions and recognize the right of public officials to act in
accordance with their own beliefs.

I know that these proposals will not make everybody
happy. Some will want a strong endorsement of gay and lesbian marriage. Others
will want a vote that recognizes traditional marriages only and with no
recognition of gay and lesbian relationships whatsoever. Each of these
positions is born of strong convictions, making compromise the only tenable
position that we can take. The need for
a compromise stems from the need to reconcile the interests of societal
beliefs, law and tradition in a manner that all the majority of Canadians would
recognize as just. This should be Parliament's goal.

The position taken by the Leader of the Opposition is
the compromise position. It is the moderate position and it accords with the
general thoughts and beliefs of the majority of Canadians. While there are
Canadians on both sides of this issue, we live in a society that prides itself
on the ability to compromise and find solutions, which take the concerns and
positions of everyone into account. That is what we are attempting to do by
putting forward a compromise position.

Some across the way would charge that if we do not
change the definition of marriage we will in fact be denying rights to
homosexual Canadians. Several European countries have shown that this is not
the case. A quick survey of countries in Europe shows that while the
Netherlands and Belgium have adopted same sex marriage legislation, registered
domestic partnerships are available in Sweden, Spain, Norway, Denmark, Finland,
Germany, Iceland and parts of Italy. Civil pacts are available in France.
Finally, the Czech Republic, Portugal and Switzerland are considering
introducing legislation to provide protections, rights and benefits to gay and
lesbian individuals in committed relationships…During this debate the Liberals
have attempted to hide their politics by invoking the language of rights and
accusing our party of not believing in rights. This could not be further from
the truth. The Conservative Party has approached this issue as one where a
reasonable compromise can be found. We have spoken honestly with Canadians and
it is my hope that the House follows our lead.[62]

With the party
platforms so well defined, it is incredibly disconcerting to realize that a
“senior” evangelical minister finds himself in a quandary over who to vote for
in Election 2006 and that he would pass this doubt onto his denomination five
days before the election:

I want to
assure you of three things. First of
all, I don’t know how I am going to vote and secondly, if I did, it
would not be appropriate to share that information…it’s why we have secret
ballots. Thirdly, we don’t tell people
how to vote [in our denomination]. It
would be impractical, unthinkable and unbiblical to do so. [my
underline]

The results of
Election 2006 are history. A new
Conservative government ended 14 years of Liberal rule; however, minority
status meant the government could not reverse the same-sex marriage decision. Some may rest content believing that Canada’s
adoption of a homosexist worldview was inevitable in a post-modern secular
humanist state. Some may rest content
believing homosexism to be God’s will. Authentic
Christians, on the other hand, need to reflect on the voting criteria adopted in
Election 2006. Given the spiritual and
moral issues at play and the fact that some 76 percent of Canadians declare
Christianity to be their religion, the failure in 2006 to reverse the
redefinition of marriage needs to be recognized as a colossal failure among
Christians to take a crucial stand for Christ at a pivotal point in Canadian
politics.

[14] “In its struggle to achieve equality for each and every member, CUPE is
committed to fighting injustice in all its forms. The National Pink Triangle
Committee is another step toward that goal,” http://cupe.ca/EqualityPride/4188,
18/12/2007.

[46] Hilary White, “So
Much for 10% Gay: New Statistics Show Homosexual Couples Represent only 0.6% of
All Couples in Canada,” LifeSite, September 12, 2007, http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/sep/07091201.html,
18/12/2007. Note that there have
been 12,438 homosexual marriages to October 2006, according to Wikipedia.